Springfield City Council rejects contract with district fire chiefs over residency requirement

Updated April 10, 2017 at 9:15 PM;Posted April 10, 2017 at 9:06 PM

William Mahoney

William Mahoney, Springfield's director of human resources and labor relations, listens to concerns from City Council about a proposed contract with the union representing the Fire's Department's district chiefs. April 10, 2017.
(Brian Steele, The Republican)

SPRINGFIELD - The City Council rejected a proposed contract with the Fire Department's district chiefs on Monday night because of a residency clause that only applied to future hires.

The vote was the latest step in a long dispute between the city government and the Springfield Fire Chiefs Association over the enforcement of the residency ordinance.

"We don't bargain over following a law," said City Council President Orlando Ramos before casting a no vote. "I don't have to pay you for following a law. That's not how it works."

Under the proposed contract, only Fire Department employees hired after July 1, 2017, who were eventually promoted to district chief, would be required to live in Springfield.

Records show six of the eight current district chiefs live outside the city, and critics argue those jobs should be held by residents.

The issue is the subject of a lawsuit in Hampden Superior Court. Ten Springfield residents want the court to require enforcement of the ordinance.

Lawyers for the union argue that the ordinance has not been enforced since the 1970s, and thus is outdated. Springfield City Solicitor Ed Pikula and William Mahoney, the city's director of Human Resources and Labor Relations, say the ordinance is valid, but should be negotiated at the bargaining table.

The City Council rejected a contract proposal in September because it did not contain a residency clause.

"It's clear that that message wasn't received," said Ramos, the council president.

City Councilor Kenneth E. Shea said he understands the need to work out the residency matter, but urged his colleagues to "solve the puzzle of at least getting the raises" to the union members. He said the controversy is "denying people just compensation for doing a very dangerous job."

Salaries for the district chiefs range from $96,177 to $105,325. The proposed agreement called for 2 percent annual pay raises until 2019, retroactive to 2013.

There was another 1.5 percent pay raise effective July 1, 2014, for new "collateral duties" involving information technology, rules and regulations, dangerous buildings and special hazards coordination.

The 10-member union consists of the eight district chiefs, a fire repair supervisor and a fire alarm supervisor.

The prior contract expired in 2012.

Mahoney, the human resources director, said the City Council has approved negotiated residency requirements "time and time again."

City Council Vice President Justin Hurst argued that this situation is "unique" because those who follow the residency requirement are suffering from a lack of available promotions.

"We have six district chiefs who are currently in violation of the law," said Hurst. "What good is this body if we create laws that don't have to be followed?"

Councilor Kateri B. Walsh disagreed, saying the city has never fairly enforced residency rules, and it's "unfair to penalize" the district chiefs.